Here’s What You Need To Know About The Pandemic Bill Being Protested In Melbourne

Hundreds of protesters have rallied outside of Victoria’s State Parliament on Wednesday morning, demanding the Andrews Government’s proposed new pandemic legislation be axed.

Two busloads of police have been deployed on the steps of Parliament today to manage crowds and ensure safety amid a number of threats to storm Parliament — and threats on Dan Andrews’ life over the bill.

“I look forward to the day I get to see you dance on the end of a rope,” one protester said yesterday.

So what exactly is proposed in the new legislation, and is it cause for concern?

What Does The Legislation Aim To Achieve?

The new bill aims to replace Victoria’s current State of Emergency Laws — which were used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but had to be renewed every four weeks to remain in effect. According to the Andrews Government, the new laws would be a “purpose-built” response to handle pandemics specifically, rather than the current emergency laws that are all-encompassing.

The key changes to the legislation include:

• Giving the Premier the power to declare a pandemic (currently, only the Chief Health Officer can do this).
• Allowing the state’s pandemic status to be declared for up to three months at a time, with no outer limit on the maximum duration of a pandemic.
• Introducing broad powers for the Health Minister to make and introduce public health orders.
• Developing an independent pandemic management advisory committee — made up of public health, human rights and community representatives and stakeholders.
• Restricting QR code data to only be used for health purposes, and not by police for other reasons.

Initially, the Andrews Government was seeking to introduce a maximum fine of $90,500 for the most extreme breaches of the public health orders, however, this amount has since been halved.

Additionally, the bill states that all public health advice must be made public, and be tabled in parliament to give the Victorian public the ability to full understand the reason behind the decision. So, while it would — in theory — give the Premier a slew of new powers, they won’t exactly have the power to just declare a pandemic at will, without adequate reason.

Why Is It Happening Now?

While it may feel a bit weird to have the Andrews Government petitioning for stronger pandemic laws at the same time as they’re easing COVID-19 restrictions amid high vaccination rates, but it’s important to note that these laws aren’t COVID-specific.

The laws, if passed, will be helpful if and when another potentially deadly virus becomes a pandemic. But the timeliness of the bill being debated in Parliament is due to the fact that the current state of emergency powers — which have now been in place for 21 months — will expire on December 15.

Considering the last sitting day of Parliament for the year is December 2, the issue is particularly timely.

What Are The Amendments?

The Victorian Government has agreed to a number of changes to the proposed bill after conversations with crossbenchers, whose vote they will need to pass the legislation.

Amendments agreed upon on Monday night include:

• Reductions in fines for breaching public health orders
• A stronger threshold for declaring a pandemic.
• Ensuring the right to protest is maintained.
• Strengthening human rights protections.
• Guaranteed resourcing for the independent oversight committee.
• Public health advice must be published publicly within seven days (down from 14).

The Opposition has called for further amendments to the bill, namely, a one month limit on pandemic declarations, but Andrews has accused them of playing “political games” at the expense of Victorians.

“You’ve got the opposition who are wanting to have it both ways,” said Andrews. “Standing with people who are anti-science, anti-vaccination while at the same time talking about the place being closed.”

How Does It Compare To Other States’ Legislation?

Dan Andrews has repeatedly stressed that the proposed bill isn’t all that different to what’s in place in New South Wales, but this isn’t entirely accurate.

According to the University of Melbourne’s Dr William Partlett, the Victorian bill is “an improvement on what exists in New South Wales”, where the state operates on a bill that is 11 years old. In NSW, laws surrounding invoking emergency powers — and the length of declarations — are much more relaxed than the new Victorian proposal.

However, it’s also worth noting that every other state in Australia is operating under really old legislation, and considering everything we’ve learned in the last two years, it’s not entirely ludicrous to suggest we should update this legislation in case of future pandemics.

“I fully expect and would hope New South Wales would redraft and create their own fit-for-purpose law, taking into account a lot of what they’ve learnt,” Partlett said. “I think every state in Australia is going to have to redraft … and that’s why this is such a significant piece of legislation for Australia, because Victoria is largely going to set a model.”

Who Supports The Legislation?

Despite what you may have assumed — given the days of protesting — there’s actually a fair few people who support the bill. Animal Justice Party MP Andy Meddick supports the bill, asserting that new changes to the legislation will ensure the government is held accountable.

“These changes will ensure Victoria has the most transparent and accountable pandemic management framework in the country,” he said, according to the ABC.

Additionally, Daniel Webb — the legal director of the Human Rights Legal Centre — supports the amendments. “These are the sorts of safeguards that ultimately help government make better decisions and also help build and maintain public trust in those decisions,” he said.

Who Doesn’t Support The Legislation?

While some support the bill, there has been a significant amount of backlash to the proposal from both the opposition, and other key stakeholders. Opposition leader Matthew Guy has called the legislation “an incredible attack on democracy.” Specifically, he drew issue with the ability for the Premier to declare a pandemic, labelling it “unprecedented.”

But Guy isn’t the only person who has criticised the bill, with the Victorian Bar Association — representing more than 2,000 barristers in Victoria — have also flagged issues with the bill.

In an official submission, the Bar raised concerns with the “extraordinarily broad” powers given to the Health Minister, and the lack of an outer time limit on how long pandemic laws can be in place. Even after the amendments were made, Victorian Bar president Roisin Annesley still had issues with the bill, claiming amendments “largely address low priority issues.”

“The major issues include the lack of effective parliamentary control over the minister’s pandemic orders and the lack of provision for an independent review of authorised officers’ exercise of power,” she said, according to the ABC.

A similar issue was raised by the Australian Industry Group’s Tim Piper, who was concerned with the large amount of power being granted.

“They’re concerned to make sure that the level of authority that premiers have, that health ministers have, that bureaucrats have, that authorised officers have, do not go too far,” he said.